Thinking Activity: Dryden's Essay on Dramatick Poesie

This post is in reference to the questions asked here:

http://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/09/drydens-essay-on-dramatic-poesy-short.html


The publication of John Dryden's essay in 1668, marked a new beginning in the field of literary criticism. So much was the contribution of the essay that, Dryden is still considered the Father of English criticism. The reason is quite simple. For the first time we find an English writer giving a proper definition of a play after Aristotle.We surely had critics like Philip Sidney before him, but none of them ever tried to define them according to their understanding. They just built upon the foundations laid by Aristotle. Dryden, though not completely disregarding Aristotle's ideas, tried to come up with a definition which was suitable to his times as well. If we want to compare Dryden's definition with that of Aristotle, let's take a look at both of them:

Let's first list out the common points between the two: 1. Imitation or Image 2. Lively or Action 3. Catharsis or Delight 4. Human nature [passions, humors,changes of fortune,incidents arousing pity and fear]

The first distinguishing factor is quite obvious, i.e, the element of instruction missing from Aristotle's definition. Aristotle's focus was on the aesthetic pleasure a work of art, and especially a play, a tragedy, provides. He was defending drama or poetry, as literature was called during his time, from his teacher Plato's accusation. The ultimate aim was to highlight that poetry had a truth of its own. Though there was imitation, there was 'method' in it. On the other hand, Dryden's situation was different. During his time the accusations to literature, or drama were done more on the grounds of morality. He himself was against the profanity of the theater during the Restoration period. Therefore, it became essential to mention the instructive element. Arguing that one of the functions of a play or drama was to instruct as well along with delight can also be considered a hint to infer that a balance of the two was necessary, instead of the dominance of any one. Thus, the difference lies in the purpose or aim for defining.

I personally believe that both classics and moderns have their own place in literature and are equally valuable. However, I am also of the opinion that, moderns, to quote Eugenius' argument from the essay," having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it is no wonder if we hit some airs and features they have missed." He says that to the ancients' help we have added our own 'industry'. Though Dryden, through Eugenius, was talking about his time, the argument is relevant even today. In our times also, we often see that writers draw lines from the ancients and yet add their own ideas to that already existing design. The element of novelty is what, in my opinion, makes a literary work open for interpretation, which as we all know, is one of the aims of literature.

Writing at a time when French influence on the English life and literature was at its peak, Dryden tries his best, outlining the plus and minus points of French drama. The pros of the French drama are pointed out by the character Lisideius whereas the cons are listed out by Neander, the voice of Dryden. The arguments Lisideius presents in favour of French drama, in my opinion, set forth the inference that any literature which follows the classics or the ancient masters is the best against the one which tries to alter those ideas. And since the French usually adhere to the classic tradition, their plays are better than the English. I won't say that Lisideius' arguments are out and out inappropriate. But, I disagree with him on this statement because ancient classics shouldn't be the only parameter for judging a modern literature (in this case drama). Interestingly, the arguments against the French, presented by Neander appear equally biased. So, I think the attitude with which the speaker argues is somewhat biased which, in my opinion is inappropriate.

I personally think that the dialogues of a play are framed according the plot and context of the play, and therefore, poetic and prosaic dialogues ca be employed accordingly. But, as far as the modern film culture is concerned, prosaic dialogues would be more appropriate, because of the trend and the public taste. Poetic dialogues are still in vogue for the dramatic performance, in my opinion, and there are people who appreciate it. To explain my first statement, for example, the concept of a 'Musical' would expect the dialogues to be poetic, whereas an average cinematic performance would aim for more prosaic dialogues. We can also say that, to a certain extent, the contemporary film culture is a blend of the prosaic and poetic dialogues. As we can see the concept of 'songs' in a movie, which are in a way dialogues between the characters.